The first cause argument

[leroy]

All of this has already been done to death here already. There are clear counterexamples for premise 1,.

Sure if you can provide a counter example to premise 1 the KCA would be refuted.

 

[leroy]

No, not coherent. Which one is the cause? What does it mean to be a cause?

your own source answers this question

I would suggest that one way to distinguish cause from effect when the two are simultaneous is through material implication.

That is, if at some time two events A and B occur, the cause is that one which implies the other. So, if A being true means B must be true, then A is in some sense the cause of B .

Yes. And so could you using Google: "It is a fundamental that simultaneous cause and effect is impossible. The relative nature of simultaneity conflicts with the fundamental requirement that effect cannot precede cause."

The guy who wrote the text made an argument for why simultaneous causation is impossible, he is not claiming that by definition the cause comes before the effect.

I don’t deny that there are good arguments on both sides (scholars are divided)

As for the claims in the article, the guy is talking about a physical barrier that exists in our universe (the speed of light) so at most he proved that simultaneous cause and effect are physically impossible, but not logically incoherent.

 

[Polymath257]

Moon reflects light - depends on sun's light. Bob doesn't depend on Harry in the process of begetting.

the light is the cause of the illumination. The moon simply reflects it. That is very ordinary causality in time.

if I throw a ball at a wall and the ball bounces, the wall doesn't 'participate' in throwing the ball.

 

[Polymath257]

..and there is no reason for it?
..we just evolved like that, and other creatures didn't?

other animals have lesser degrees of the same things.

When we theorise that there could be an infinite amount of causes for why things happen, it implies that all we see is incidental. I rule that out. It is unsatisfactory.

Why would you say it is 'incidental'? And why is that a bad thing?

 

[Polymath257]

Cero is not a “thing” nothing time X is = nothing………….I don’t think there are reasons to assume that infinity and cero are analogous.

Zero is definitely a thing. A body can be at rest (have zero velocity). And two things at rest each are going 10 times as fast as the other, but move the same distance.

the analogy isn't perfect, but it rebuts your argument.

 

[Polymath257]

Which is why its impossible to select randomly a square number from an infinite poll of options .

The claim that events with cero probability can happen is not only paradoxical its logically incoherent it´s contradictory

The claims

1 Events “X” has a probability of zero

And

2 Event X wont happen

Are both synonymous.


The probability of selecting a square number randomly is cero, which is why this event cant happen.-

No, they are not. Look up any book that discusses continuous probability distributions.

For example, an electron is a shell has *zero* probability of being detected at any specific point, but non-zero probability of being detected in some volume.

But the electron is always detected at some specific point.

This is related to the fact that the volume of a point is zero.

 

[sayak83]

..and there is no reason for it?
..we just evolved like that, and other creatures didn't?

When we theorise that there could be an infinite amount of causes for why things happen, it implies that all we see is incidental. I rule that out. It is unsatisfactory.

Universe does not exist to satisy us...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why would you say it is 'incidental'? And why is that a bad thing?

OK
Let's suppose that I ask why does the earth orbit the sun?
..and you reply "maybe it has always done so".
Does that offer an explanation? No.
It simply avoids the issue, and furthermore adds the complexity of something you can't possibly know.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Universe does not exist to satisy us...

That is neither here nor there.
We have to make sense of our own existence.

We have to decide for ourselves what is likely to be true, and what is not.
The probability that the universe has always existed is next to 0, as far as I'm concerned. I observe that physical things have a lifespan.

 

[sayak83]

That is neither here nor there.
We have to make sense of our own existence.

We have to decide for ourselves what is likely to be true, and what is not.
The probability that the universe has always existed is next to 0, as far as I'm concerned. I observe that physical things have a lifespan.

You have observed that physical forms have lifespans. What you have not observed is the coming into being and going out of being of any physical substrate.

 

[leroy]

Zero is definitely a thing. A body can be at rest (have zero velocity). And two things at rest each are going 10 times as fast as the other, but move the same distance.

the analogy isn't perfect, but it rebuts your argument.

if both have the same velocity (zero) then they both will travel the same distance.............. i dont get your point

 

[leroy]

No, they are not. Look up any book that discusses continuous probability distributions.

For example, an electron is a shell has *zero* probability of being detected at any specific point, but non-zero probability of being detected in some volume.

But the electron is always detected at some specific point.

This is related to the fact that the volume of a point is zero.

Your argument assumes that “points” exist as real objects (rather than useful tools that exist in the human mind)

If you claim that points exist, then you are accepting the existence of timeless immaterial and space less objects (which is a big step towards accepting the KCA) this is not relevant to this specific conversation but I thought it was worth mentioning

As for your comment electrons are not (and can not) be detected in a spaceless point, electrons are detected somewhere in the space

 

[leroy]

No, they are not. Look up any book that discusses continuous probability distributions.
.

Quote any source that claims (or implies) that the probability of selecting a specific value is zero but it can still happen anyway.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You have observed that physical forms have lifespans. What you have not observed is the coming into being and going out of being of any physical substrate.

No, I haven't.
However, I don't believe that physical things are everlasting.
A man can have all the women and gold he desires in this world, but everybody has to die one day.
It is temporary.

I therefore conclude, that non-physical things are of more importance than physical things.
There would be no good reason for this physical universe to be everlasting.
G-d is able to create as many universes as He so wills.
Furthermore, they don't need to behave in the same way as this one.

The belief that this universe is eternal assumes no explanation of its existence is required.
That is just not good enough, I'm afraid.

 

[Polymath257]

OK
Let's suppose that I ask why does the earth orbit the sun?
..and you reply "maybe it has always done so".
Does that offer an explanation? No.

Well, since the Earth did have a beginning (there was a time before the Earth), we can ask about the conditions of its formation and how those conditions, along with the laws of physics, produces the orbit.

But, gravity is a fundamental aspect of that explanation. If we then ask why gravity is the way it is, we have no explanation, and, even more, there may not *be* a deeper explanation.

Was there a time before gravity? Probably not. Does gravity depend on other things? Well, it is a property of mass and energy, so I guess it depends on mass and energy in that way.

But then, do mass and energy depend on anything? Not that we know of. Probably not.

It simply avoids the issue, and furthermore adds the complexity of something you can't possibly know.

It doesn't avoid the issue if that is simply the way it is and there is no deeper explanation.

Why are electrons negatively charged? There really may not be a deeper explanation than to say that we define things to be electrons when they have certain properties and one of the properties of electrons is that they are negatively charged.

It really may be that there is no deeper reason.

And, again, for the *most* fundamental aspects, there *cannot* be a deeper reason (or else they wouldn't be the most fundamental). So we are *guaranteed* that there will be some things that have no deeper explanation: they are the way they are simply because that is how they are.

Fundamental things have to be 'raw facts'.

 

[Polymath257]

Quote any source that claims (or implies) that the probability of selecting a specific value is zero but it can still happen anyway.

Take a uniform distribution in a volume. What is the probability of any point? It is *always* zero.

Taking a random treatment I found:
3.3 - Continuous Probability Distributions | STAT 500

Quote:
"Note! If Y is continuous P(Y=y)=0 for any given value y. Unlike the discrete random variables, the pdf of a continuous random variable does not equal to P(Y=y)."

In other words, every single point has probability zero. Yet, individual points are what happen.

 

[Polymath257]

Your argument assumes that “points” exist as real objects (rather than useful tools that exist in the human mind)

If you claim that points exist, then you are accepting the existence of timeless immaterial and space less objects (which is a big step towards accepting the KCA) this is not relevant to this specific conversation but I thought it was worth mentioning

Points are what spacetime is composed of.

As for your comment electrons are not (and can not) be detected in a spaceless point, electrons are detected somewhere in the space

At *points* in space.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It really may be that there is no deeper reason..

No, I can't accept that.
It offers no explanation. It is like saying that a book has no author.
It is not possible.

 

[Polymath257]

if both have the same velocity (zero) then they both will travel the same distance.............. i dont get your point

But they are going 10 times as fast as the other.

In the infinity example, the velocities are different, but an infinite time span leads to the same (infinite) distance traveled.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I can't accept that.
It offers no explanation. It is like saying that a book has no author.
It is not possible.

Not only is it possible, it is necessary at some point.